Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

  • I agree. I oppose Superdelagates

  • I disagree. I support Superdelegates


Results are only viewable after voting.

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"In my view, this Commission must:

* Make the Democratic Party more democratic and the presidential contests more fair by dramatically reducing the number of superdelegates who participate in the nominating process. It is absurd that in the last presidential primary over 700 superdelegates (almost one-third of the delegates a candidate needed to win the nomination) had the power to ignore the will of the people who voted in the state primaries and caucuses.

* Make primaries more open by ending the absurdity of closed primary systems with antiquated, arbitrary and discriminatory voter registration laws. Republicans are the ones who make it harder for people to vote, not Democrats. At a time when more and more people consider themselves to be Independents our job is to bring people into the Democratic Party process, not exclude them. It is incredibly undemocratic that in some states voters must declare their party affiliation up to six months before the primary election.

* Make it easier for working people and students to participate in state caucuses. While there is much to be said for bringing people together face-to-face in a caucus to discuss why they support the candidate of their choice, not everybody is able to attend those caucuses at the time they are held. A process must be developed that gives everyone the right to cast a vote even if they are not physically able to attend a state caucus.

* Make the DNC’s budget and decision-making processes more open and transparent. If we are going to build a Party that relies on working people who are willing to give $5, $10 and $27 donations, they deserve to know where that money is going and how those decisions are made."
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
"In my view, this Commission must:

* Make the Democratic Party more democratic and the presidential contests more fair by dramatically reducing the number of superdelegates who participate in the nominating process. It is absurd that in the last presidential primary over 700 superdelegates (almost one-third of the delegates a candidate needed to win the nomination) had the power to ignore the will of the people who voted in the state primaries and caucuses.

* Make primaries more open by ending the absurdity of closed primary systems with antiquated, arbitrary and discriminatory voter registration laws. Republicans are the ones who make it harder for people to vote, not Democrats. At a time when more and more people consider themselves to be Independents our job is to bring people into the Democratic Party process, not exclude them. It is incredibly undemocratic that in some states voters must declare their party affiliation up to six months before the primary election.

* Make it easier for working people and students to participate in state caucuses. While there is much to be said for bringing people together face-to-face in a caucus to discuss why they support the candidate of their choice, not everybody is able to attend those caucuses at the time they are held. A process must be developed that gives everyone the right to cast a vote even if they are not physically able to attend a state caucus.

* Make the DNC’s budget and decision-making processes more open and transparent. If we are going to build a Party that relies on working people who are willing to give $5, $10 and $27 donations, they deserve to know where that money is going and how those decisions are made."
Start your own party then, cuck.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Ahh, ok.

So Sanders can win a contest when 75% of voters don't turn up?

Most popular politician ever.
Progressives win more often when more voters show up to the polls, which is why the establishment tactic is to try to get the least amount of people possible by using voter suppression tactics like Republicans use that discriminate against poor and minorities the most
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Progressives win more often when more voters show up to the polls, which is why the establishment tactic is to try to get the least amount of people possible by using voter suppression tactics like Republicans use that discriminate against poor and minorities the most
Ok so why did he lose by 4 million votes or a full 12.1%

Go on, cry again about how it was "rigged" and show us all how deep your delusions run.

We are starting our own party, Justice Democrats
The ones that take unlimited Corporate funds?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Ok so why did he lose by 4 million votes or a full 12.1%

Go on, cry again about how it was "rigged" and show us all how deep your delusions run.


The ones that take unlimited Corporate funds?
Hillary Clinton had near complete control of the DNC, please explain how that's not rigging the primary in her favor

They don't accept unlimited corporate funds, they have two separate bank accounts; 1 specifically for funds for candidates in accordance with FEC rules, 100% transparent, donated by individuals, and 2. for independent expenditures

"Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment

On August 19, 2011, the court issued a Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment in which the FEC agreed that it would not enforce 2 U.S.C. §§441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) against Plaintiffs with regard to contributions NDPAC receives to make independent expenditures, as long as NDPAC maintains separate bank accounts 1) to receive such contributions for independent expenditures, and 2) to receive source-and amount-limited contributions for the purpose of making candidate contributions. Further, each account must pay a percentage of administrative expenses that closely corresponds to the percentage of activity for that account, and must comply with the applicable limits for the contributions it receives for the purpose of making candidate contributions."
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton had near complete control of the DNC, please explain how that's not rigging the primary
having control of the DNC is not having control of the voters you fucking idiot.

the DNC did so good at rigging this thing that they let her lose 47 net delegates in washington state despite being the clear choice of the voters there.

explain that you fucking child.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
having control of the DNC is not having control of the voters you fucking idiot.
I didn't say having control over the DNC is having control over the voters

I said having control over the DNC is undeniably rigging the election. Maybe you don't understand the definition of "rigged". It means "to manipulate fraudulently", so in what way can you possibly claim Hillary Clinton having total control over the organization responsible for allocating funds to political campaigns, organizing debate schedules, organizing the Democratic National Convention, and holding significant influence over mainstream media is not rigging the primary? Is that not the exact definition of the word "rigged"? She tried to fraudulently manipulate the results of the election in her favor. Whether you think, or I think, or he thinks, or she thinks, that it actually worked is irrelevant to the fact that it happened. Whether or not it worked is an entirely separate question. The infrastructure that allowed this to happen in the first place still exists, and under Tom Perez' "leadership", he's ensured it's gotten much worse.

Pokemon Go! and internet memes swayed votes but complete control of the entire voting process didn't...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I didn't say having control over the DNC is having control over the voters
i know you are desperately avoiding having to address the fact that hillary lost 47 net delegates in washington state despite winning the popular vote there in a landslide because it disproves all the bullshit you spew, but at least try to not make it so obvious.

"it was so rigged that hillary got more votes and lost 47 delegates!"

you are fucking retarded, padaraper.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
African Americans were ignorant enough to be fooled by a Russian propaganda campaign
i never said that, but you just did.

you also said black people have a "herd like mentality" and more is expected of you simply because you are white.

you're still avoiding how the DNC failed to rig washington for hillary despite her getting hundreds of thousands more votes.
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
i never said that, but you just did.

you also said black people have a "herd like mentality" and more is expected of you simply because you are white.

you're still avoiding how the DNC failed to rig washington for hillary despite her getting hundreds of thousands more votes.
She beat him by more votes in the primary there than votes were cast in the caucus.

Buck, listen up...this is how Bernie can still win...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
She beat him by more votes in the primary there than votes were cast in the caucus.

Buck, listen up...this is how Bernie can still win...
sure, hillary won washington state by a shitload and still lost 47 delegates there. but let's not focus on that.

i stated the fact that russians microtargeted black voters, which makes me racist. i should have said that black people resemble west african primates with a herd like mentality and less is expected of them than white people. than i would fit in with the JUSTICE! democrats.
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
sure, hillary won washington state by a shitload and still lost 47 delegates there. but let's not focus on that.

i stated the fact that russians microtargeted black voters, which makes me racist. i should have said that black people resemble west african primates with a herd like mentality and less is expected of them than white people. than i would fit in with the JUSTICE! democrats.
...something something establishment red-herring apartheid supporting shill something something...
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
i never said that
you are aware there was a concerted disinformation campaign that microtargeted black voters in key swing states, right?

That's you claiming that African Americans were too ignorant to be able to choose for themselves, outside of external influences, what they believe is best for them.

You called Sanders supporters racist when we told you the exact same thing in regards to African American voters choosing Clinton in the primary. Do you want me to post some of the quotes?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure he agrees with the premise

I know he believes America is conservative based on the fact that Republicans have dominated the past few years instead of looking at consistent polls over the decades that show a pretty solid trend of most of the country based on the issues. It couldn't be that the Democratic party has pushed establishment politicians who are sympathetic to corporate interests which doesn't turn out the vote or energize the base.

Establishment Democrats aren't progressive. That's why they lose.
he needs political deep dive.
 
Top